Texas Abortion Laws, Part II: The Specifics

Before I get into the specifics of Texas' new abortion laws, I submit this for your consideration.  Texan Carolyn Jones discovered, about 2 weeks after these laws took effect, that her unborn son, if he made it to term, would suffer greatly from congenital defects.  She and her husband decided that the most loving thing to do for him was to have an abortion.  And these laws made that process so much harder than it already was. 

----------------------------------------------- 

Here’s what Texas’ new abortion laws require:

• The provider must inform the woman of the medical risks of abortion; of the probable gestational age of the embryo/fetus; of the medical risks associated with carrying it to term; that she may be able to get assistance for pregnancy, birth, and neonatal care; that the father is liable for child support; and that public and private agencies provide pregnancy prevention counseling and referrals for getting birth control.
• The provider must give the woman “printed materials,” and a web address for the same, as described by section 171.014; the materials describe the “unborn child,” list agencies offering abortion alternatives, and list agencies that offer free sonogram services.
• At least 24 hours before the abortion, she must get a sonogram.  The sonographer must display images that she may view, explain the sonogram (including a “medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs”), and make the heartbeat (if present) audible to her while simultaneously explaining the heartbeat.
• Before the sonogram, the woman must sign an election form (see pages 5-6 of the bill for the text of the form).  This will stay in her file for seven years.
• The woman may choose not to view the sonogram images or listen to the heartbeat.  She may choose not to hear the explanation of the sonogram if she’s pregnant as the result of rape or incest, if she’s a minor, or if “the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality.” 
• There’s no penalty for her or the provider if she chooses not to view or listen to the above.
• If she chooses not to abort, the provider must give her paternity and child support information.
• The provider may perform an emergency abortion without informed consent, but he/she has to document/certify the medical emergency in a few different ways. 
• While fulfilling all these requirements, the woman may not make payments or financial agreements for abortion or related services, except for the services required above. 

And that’s about it.  Bear with me whilst I rant about some of the absurdities: 

The very first thing the woman must be informed of, after the provider’s name, is the medical risks she faces with her abortion.  The amendment specifies 3 risks: possible infection and hemorrhage, potential infertility or danger to future pregnancies, and the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer.  Then, a couple of items down the list, she must also be informed of “the medical risks associated with carrying the child to term.”  That’s all they wrote—no particular risks or health problems are specified, as with the abortion risks.

Some simple searches provided some interesting information here.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in their “Pregnancy Options” fact sheet (part of the Tool Kit for Teen Care), says: “An abortion is considered to be a low-risk procedure.  It is less risky than having a baby.”  Texas lawmakers don’t seem to agree with that medical assessment.  The document does confirm, however, that “Complications may include bleeding or infection.” 

As for infertility and future complications, an obstetrician on the Mayo Clinic's site writes that “Generally, abortion isn’t thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies.”  He says some research suggests a possible link between abortion and increased risk of some complications, but points out that complications caused by surgical abortion are rare.  Furthermore, an FAQ document on induced abortion from ACOG says, “Most experts agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies.”

As for breast cancer, that same document says, “There is no evidence that having an abortion increases the risk of getting breast cancer.”  Another document—the ACOG’s official opinion, from the Committee on Gynecologic Practice—expands on that unequivocal assertion: “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed.  More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” 

It sounds to me that Texas is trying to scare women out of abortions by mandating they be informed about risks that aren’t verified by rigorous studies.  Furthermore, they don’t specify any risks of pregnancy at all that women must be informed of, so I thought I’d see what some of those risks are.  I’m not even going to try to list them here, because this post is too long already.  But take a look at these links: the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health provide a brief overview of risks, and there you can scroll down…and down…and down to read a few very long lists of specific conditions.  The US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health provides long lists of prior health problems that can affect pregnancy, pregnancy-related complications, possible infections during pregnancy, and links to other resources on these complications (again, a lot of scrolling down here).  In short: pregnancy has a LOT of complications and risks that doctors are pretty certain about.  It’s interesting that not even some of the major risks are mandated to be part of the information forced on abortion-seekers. 

The amendments also repeatedly referred to “printed materials described by Section 171.014” that had to be provided to women.  This section wasn’t amended, so it didn’t appear in HB 15.  I went to the completelaw, and felt like I ‘d been sent on a wild goose chase.  This section simply describes the languages, typeface, website, etc. of these materials.  (It also says they must use ACOG as one of the sources for these materials—HA!)  It directs us to 171.015 and 171.016 for the contents of the materials.

171.015 is “Information Relating to Public and Private Agencies,” which includes lists of public and private adoption agencies, organizations that offer free sonogram services, agencies that do not provide or make referrals to providers of abortions, and agencies that are not affiliated with abortion providers or those who make referrals to such.  I find that to be very vague, and possibly very dangerous for the women who end up at agencies that harass and berate them even more than the law does.

171.016 is “Information Relating to Characteristics of Unborn Child.”  This includes “materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from the time when a woman can be known to be pregnant to full term, including any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival.”  These must include color pictures of fetuses at “two-week gestational increments,” and “must be realistic.”  And here’s the kicker: “The materials provided under this section must be objective and nonjudgmental and be designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the unborn child at the various gestational ages.”

BULLSHIT!  I CALL BULLSHIT!  This is not AT ALL objective and nonjudgmental!  It’s not like information on gestation is secret and elusive and therefore must be included to ensure a woman’s “informed consent.”  You can walk into any bookstore or library and find plenty of books on pregnancy that thoroughly describe the development of the fetus with realistic, colorful pictures.  You can find it on the internet in your own home or at the public library.  Furthermore, if Texas didn’t have “some of the weakest sex-education programs in the nation,” as Kristof wrote in the NYT, all of its citizens would already be well-informed about pregnancy and fetal development! 

I’ll end with that rant, as this post is outrageously long.  Next post: various and sundry other issues, including the invasive ultrasound.

Dear Pregnant Woman: You Are a Murderer. Love, Texas

The other day I came across the NYT op-ed “When States Abuse Women.”  In it, writer Nicholas D. Kristof describes the new abortion laws that came into effect in Texas about three weeks ago.  You should read his article, because it’s excellently written and gives an overview of similar laws in other states.  He links to Texas House Bill 15, which details the amendments to the abortion laws right down to the deletion of a comma.  So, I decided to read it and see for myself what it mandates.

And…wow.  These 14 pages are among the stupidest and most insulting text I’ve ever read.  Basically, it’s a collection of amendments and additions to their previous abortion laws—which were already disrespectful toward women seeking abortions—adding more degrading hoops for these women to jump through.  This legislation is blatantly and unabashedly attempting to berate and embarrass abortion-seekers, in order to cause them to feel like monsters and decide not to abort.

The nefarious purpose of these laws is encapsulated near the end of HB 15, in a brief description of why it exists: 

The purposes of this Act include, but are not limited to,

(1) protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women

If these legislators really think they’re protecting the “physical and psychological health” of abortion-seekers, then based on the biased information they’re shoving on these women, they’re operating on the premise that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing that is highly likely to cause physical harm and psychological devastation. 

The truth is, if they really want to protect women’s physical and psychological health, they would start by respecting them as autonomous people with the right to choose.  Then they would focus on a) putting regulations in place to make sure that providers are properly certified to care for these women, that the facilities are clean and up-to-date, that the procedures used are safe, and that the aftercare ensures their continued health and use of contraceptives; and b) that the women have access to unbiased, public counseling if they need/desire it, to help them cope with negative feelings they may have related to their abortions and to help them consider and choose the best options for them.  (I say unbiased because a counselor who tries to force her/his views on abortion would do much more harm than good, and I say public because it’s much more likely that private counselors would be biased.)

Instead, these laws misinform women about the possible risks of abortion, giving them much more attention than the more numerous and possible/probable risks of pregnancy; direct them to private agencies that, as Kristof points out, “are often set up to ensnare pregnant women and shame them or hound them if they are considering abortions”; invade their bodies with an unnecessary and invasive ultrasound; use multiple means to humanize the embryo/fetus as an innocent little son or daughter they’re about to torture and murder; and berate and humiliate them for considering such an atrocity.  These laws will prove to be incredibly psychologically damaging, and will also be physically damaging as women and girls choose to carry their unintended pregnancies to term even when the risk to their health and lives will be great.

(2) providing pregnant women access to information that would allow her to consider the impact an abortion would have on her unborn child

See?  They truly aren’t protecting pregnant women from anything; they’re psychologically abusing them by casting them as the mortal enemies of innocent little children.  They are inundated with descriptions of their “unborn child” (not “embryo” or “fetus”) and pictures of what it looks like, with an invasive and privacy-violating ultrasound, and with a pile of literature urging her to do anything besides have an abortion.

And there’s also the laughable (3) protecting the integrity and ethical standards of the medical profession.  The legislators actually claim they’re protecting the doctors’ integrity and ethics by making them force inaccurate propaganda on these often vulnerable women and perform procedures that—as the doctors say—are medically unnecessary.  And, if they don’t do it, they can be fined up to $10,000 (section 171.018) and could lose their license (section 164.005 (a)). 

I’d like to go into more detail, but in the interest of avoiding a giganti-post, I’ll break it up.  Next time: I’ll look at the details of the full laws and how absurd and stupid they are.